Mitt Romney—who actually has health insurance thanks to Apple Care—gave a little speech opposing the ruling. “What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare,” he said. “Our mission is clear. If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that.”

Reason magazine pinpointed the crux of Roberts’s decision to interpret the mandate as a tax of sorts: “Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.” The more you know!

Revelers were reportedly chanting “Yes We Can” outside the Supreme Court. But are we absolutely positive they were not chanting “Yes We Cam!” in support of British Prime Minister David Cameron? Because “Yes We Cam!” is totally, totally a thing.

The Fourth Estate (Twitter) is linking en masse to Linda Greenhouse’s April 4, 2012, online opinion column for The New York Times, in which she correctly predicted that Roberts would write the “controlling opinion” and that “as an alternative to upholding the individual mandate as an exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause, some [justices] may prefer to treat the individual mandate as a tax, squarely within Congress’s taxing power.” Mazel tov, soothsayer Linda Greenhouse. You win. . . health care.

Just after noon, President Obama delivered a speech in which he basically explained what the law does and why it’s a good thing. “It should be pretty clear by now that I didn’t do this because it was good politics,” he said Politico’s Edward-Isaac Dovere reported that the president “appears to be suppressing a smile.”

America’s greatest judicial scholar and the Donald Trump Professor of Constitutional Law at Trump University, Donald Trump, disapproves of tacky parvenu John Roberts. “Wow, the Supreme Court passed @ObamaCare. I guess @JusticeRoberts wanted to be a part of Georgetown society more than anyone knew.”

Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and John Boehner were also publicly disappointed. The most relevant of the three, Boehner, said in a statement: “Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety.”

And, finally, the best for last: CNN said sorry for its humiliating report alleging that the opposite of what happened today happened. “CNN regrets that it didn’t wait to report out the full and complete opinion regarding the mandate.” The problem was CNN didn’t wait to report out the full opinion? What part of the opinion said the mandate was unconstitutional? Was it somehow implied by the word “mandate”? CNN continues to struggle with reading comprehension skills in contexts lengthier than a chyron.